Should we be allowed to eat Humans?

That doesn't sound quite right. What is that? The Indian outlook upon the world?

We pass down what we have, to future generations. But I do not consider myself "better" than my children, so I welcome them to naturally come to life, as they can. I believe in holding the door to life open for them.

But if we supposedly do inherit the world from our children, if it is their world more than ours, then isn't that all the more reason why humans should multiply naturally, not trying to impede the natural flow of human life? Surely our children like coming alive and being welcome to be born?

And in a way, the world is more the world of future generations than ours, if the future generations are to be even more populous. For then there are all the more people to be concerned about, inhabiting the world in the future. Far more "votes" for the human race to be more numerous, not less. The future generations would have the "weight of numbers" arguing naturally for their more populous side. Especially as at the rate we are going, eventually projecting probably far out beyond the Biblical endtimes in the assumption that "current rates" continue on without such a "wrap-up" anytime soon, we would reach the point of having the majority of people who have ever lived, still being alive, as the human population doubling time is still shorter than the average lifespan. I do rather think that so many people so benefitting from being alive, would not want to be any less numerous then, and still much insist upon being free to enjoy having their children. I see it as curious and beautiful to consider that the living might someday much outnumber the cummulative total dead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Take your point, but I think you should check where all the new humans are coming from....not from our rich western countries where new parents will have one, maybe 2 kids...... they are multiplying in poorer developing countries, which invariably can't sustain the population, as much as we empathise and commit aid to try and feed them.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

heeheeheeheehahahahahawhawhaw... pronatalist... That stuff is AWESOME! You and Metakron both, man. hooo. Haven't laughed that much in a while. Looks like Enmos has you in check, though. Wow... And they say I'M Nuts. bahahahaha

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you saying extinction is immoral?

 

So preserving defunct species is a worthy and moral cause? Can't say I agree on those grounds. I could see it as an esthetic cause and to preserve information for research.

The future of the planet requires defunct species die off.

 

How many different animals and plants went extinct before the rise of man? It seems as if preserving "biological diversity" is not particularly high on Mother Nature's list.


Kadark

 

Preserving is not the same thing as not eradicating.
And you need to think about the timespans.

 

Biologically, almost any species is more important than humans. Prove otherwise if you don't agree.

 

Clearly, even the Darwinists dislike their own system!


Kadark

 

Sorry James that is not an appeal to nature. In fact it is not a moral argument at all, let alone an appeal to nature. Look read the stupid link you keep linking to ok?

 

He did not imply it would be good. He asked about the numbers of previously extinct species and said: "It seems as if preserving "biological diversity" is not particularly high on Mother Nature's list."

Which while peotically phrased, is both true and not a moral claim. Nature is neither for nor against preserving "biological diversity" and that is neither good nor bad. There have been natural extinctions where nore than 90% of all life was extinguished. We happen to be entering an extinction phase right now. One which we seem to be one of the instigators of.

Its not "bad" that black rhinos are going the way of wooly rhinos. That's just how the system works and we will join the trilobytes if we don't pull our heads out of our asses.

 

People would keep herds of them if they were allowed to do so. We've had a lot of conservation volunteers for a long time who have not only been ignored, but have had their rights trampled on, their lives threatened, and have been reviled by the so-called scientific conservationists. How dare individual farmers to do things on the cheap without spending at least a million dollars for each animal "saved"?

 

A defunct species is one which is all but extinct and possibly one which we are actively trying to "preserve." In other words the dodos of the world.

These species have throughout the history of the planet died off. It is how evolution works and it is pure hubris to think we know better.

No, but when a species is numbered in the hundreds its in pretty bad shape and when it gets below that it has significant problems even if it comes back, like the cheetahs.

What does "worth" have to do with anything? Do you think anything cares about "worth" except some humans?

There are plenty of viable and healthy species. The coyote, raccoon, rat and pigeon have all greatly extended their range, just to name a few. The second mass extinction of marsupials is currently under way though.

 

Its no more bad when we are doing it than it is when any other animal is doing it. Its just how life works.